incubus and succubus- demons of lustful nature

  • Thread starter Thread starter creedseebas
  • Start date Start date
Not open for further replies.


please tell me all you know about these because i need to arm myself for some major deliverance and spiritual warfare!
Incubus, n. In medieval European folklore, the incubus is a male demon (or evil spirit) who visits women in their sleep to lie with them in ghostly sexual intercourse. The woman who falls victim to an incubus will not awaken, although may experience it in a dream. Should she get pregnant the child will grow inside her as any normal child, except that it will possess supernatural capabilities and is known as a cambion. Usually the child grows into a person of evil intent or a powerful wizard. Legend has it that the magician Merlin was the result of the union of an incubus and a nun.

Succubus, n. In medieval European folklore, a female demon (or evil spirit) who visits men in their sleep to lie with them in ghostly sexual intercourse. The man who falls victim to a succubus will not awaken, although may experience it in a dream.

According to one legend, the incubus and the succubus were fallen angels. Succubi are the female version of incubi, although the word is actually masculine in medieval Latin because demons were supposedly sexless. The feminine form is succuba. It was supposed that incubi outnumbered succubi by 9 to 1.

Regarding help, talk to your priest - immediately.

Acording to Saint Thomas, demons cannot have sex with and impregnate women with their own seed.

However, he says that it’s possible that they can get a woman pregnant with another man’s seed. How, you ask? The demon takes the form of a woman, has sex with a man, and keeps the seed from his semen. The demon, with the seed of the man, assumes the form of a man, and has sex with a mortal woman, giving her the first man’s seed.

He impregnates the woman that way.

Interesting stuff, huh? Read it in the Summa the other day.

I’m an actor; I know plenty of girls struggling in the business who would jump at the chance of engaging in wild demon-sex. Can I give them your contact information?


Seriously, though, talk to a priest . . .
I’m an actor; I know plenty of girls struggling in the business who would jump at the chance of engaging in wild demon-sex. Can I give them your contact information?
Although this quip did elicit a chuckle, if you were in throwing range and I had a pair of boots…for you…Boot to the head!
… Acording to Saint Thomas, demons cannot have sex with and impregnate women with their own seed . . .
I guess Saint Thomas wasn’t familar with sacred scripture because according to Genesis 6:4 “At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown”] and modern interpertation of that passage, demons CAN impregnate women with their own seed and produce off-spring.
… Usually the child grows into a person of evil intent or a powerful wizard …
Actually, he would grow up to be a Sorcerer, not a Wizard. Technically speaking, a Wizard is a regular mortal with no internal powers but relies on knowledge of the mystic arts while a Sorcerer has an internal power supply due to his demon parenthood.

Genesis 6:4
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were th mighty men who wer of old, men of renown.

As far as my knowledge goes, giant does not equal demon. If your knowledge differs, please expand.

God Bless
" … when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them … "

‘sons of God’ (‘sons’ with a small “s”) refers to the fallen angels, or demons.

‘daughters of men’ refers to the female offspring of Adam & Eve.

Thus, the passage reads – when the demons came to women and they bore children to them …

… implying that demons can mate with mortals and produce off-spring.
Gen 6:4 is interpreted quite differently by Dr. Hah. He believes the “Sons of God” refer to the decendants of Seth who were disposed to be good. The “Daughters of Men” were the decentants of Cain. By his reckoning, the male decendents of Seth were attracted to the more worldly women decended from Cain. The decentants of Seth became more corrupt with each generation untill Noah’s Ark.

I don’t know if this is the preferred exegesis, but it has been proposed but a well respected Catholic.

Alternately, the NAB describes the “Sons of Heaven” as “The celestrial beings of mythology.”

In context, Dr. Hahn’s exegisis seems quite reasonable.
fogie, you could be right and you could be wrong. The only information I have on this matter is the following –
… There are Bible scholars who believe that the “sons of God” spoken of in (Genesis 6:1, 4) refer to fallen angels (the term “sons of God” is often used in the Scripture to refer to angels). Their belief is that the Nephilim (definition: the fallen ones) spoken of in (Genesis 6:4) were a race of giant demigods produced by the unnatural cohabitation between women (the daughters of men) and fallen angels (the sons of God). This was the view of early Jewish scholars and was the view held by the Christian Church. Demons are fallen angels.
There is also the belief that the “sons of God” mentioned in the above verses is referring to the Godly line of Seth, whereas, the “daughters of men” is referring to the ungodly line of Cain (Cain being the son of Adam and Eve who killed his brother Abel) …
I think, creedseebus, you need to focus on the deceptive nature of the devil.

The well known exorcists would, I believe, tell you to rely on prayer, the sacraments, especially confession, and such items as holy water, holy oil, and holy salt.

I understand that a baptized Christian cannot be possessed without formal coopearation with demons, though, demonic oppression can get intense.

I’ll keep you in prayer.
Don’t have the reference handy at the moment, but I believe regular 'ol men are referred to as sons of God a couple of times in the Old Testament. (Jehovah’s Witnesses are quite fond of bringing this up, but for other reasons) :hmmm:
The traditional teaching of the Church, from the time of Saint Augustine, is that the “sons of God” are from the line of Seth, the “sons of men” from the line of Cain.

While “sons of God” in some Old Testament passages can refer to angels, it nowhere had this meaning in the Book of Genesis. Not only that, but “Nephilim” are said to exist even AFTER the Flood, mention of them being made in the Book of Numbers (Chapter 13).

Saint Thomas tells us that, while angels do assume body shells from time to time, they do not exercise life functions in said bodies, including reproduction.

A nice summary is found here:
In the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas addresses the issue of whether or not angels can assume bodies. The answer is affirmative, and for the sed contra (“on the contrary,” an argument from authority that begins Aquinas’ response to the question), Aquinas cites Augustine, saying that angels appeared to Abraham under assumed bodies (citing City of God, xvi). Aquinas’ argument then proceeds through several important points: while angels are not embodied creatures, nor have bodies by nature, they can nonetheless assume bodies. They do so on our account: “that by conversing familiarly with men they may give evidence of that intellectual companionship which men expect to have with them in the life to come”(ST I.51.2 ad 1). The angelic assumption of bodies enables the “spiritual communication” or intellectual companionship constitutive of charity as friendship with God (II-II.23.1). Furthermore, such assumption figuratively indicates the incarnation, the Son’s union with the flesh - so that the truth of the Incarnation, for Aquinas, surpasses that of its figuration, or, to use one traditional way of phrasing it, the angelic type is surpassed by its antitype in Christ. [Along these lines, Aquinas distinguishes the union of the incarnation from the assumption of flesh; see ST III.2.8. As the incarnation is a union, the Son of God is (this) man, whereas assumption does not unite the natures, such that the angels and their bodies remain distinct.]
In the next article, where he argues that angels do not exercise vital functions in bodies, Aquinas explores how the angels ate with Abraham. Strictly speaking, they cannot eat, because eating converts food into the substance of the eater, but material food cannot be converted into angelic substance. Thus, their eating “was not a true eating, but figurative of spiritual eating” (ST I.51.3). The point, of such figuration, again is to establish fellowship and allow hospitality: “Abraham offered them food, deeming them to be men, in whom, nevertheless, he worshipped God, as God is wont to be in the prophets, as Augustine says”(ST I.51.3, my emphasis). By visibly offering food, Abraham shows spiritual hospitality; by their visible “eating,” they accept this fellowship and share in the feast. Later in the Summa, Aquinas explains how angels can do so. In I.111.4, Aquinas argues that angels can inflict sensory changes upon people through the use of material things, as the angels who overturn Sodom inflict blindness upon the men at Lot’s door. For Aquinas, it seems clear that such material change is directed toward a spiritual transformation.
In other words, the bodies of the angels do not have lives in and of themselves, as Christ’s Body did at the Incarnation. Rather, they are mere tools of the angels, who are substantially seperate from their bodies. Thus, the bodies do not have life functions.
Here’s what Saint Thomas says about Genesis 6. He also addresses the possibility of demon sex:
As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): “Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God’s holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge.” Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.
For a good summary of historical and theological evidence against the “fallen angel” theory of Genesis 6, from a Protestant, go here.

Scott Hahn defends the Sethite theory better than I’ve seen anyone else do so. If I have time, maybe I’ll write it out later.

In our last lesson, we left our first family, Adam and Eve, on the outside of paradise looking in - exiled by their sin and disobedience, their failure to live up to the demands of God’s covenant.

The chapters that follow (see Genesis 4-5) show us the “fruits” of Adam and Eve’s original sin: We see that human seed now is mixed between the good and evil. The tension between the two seeds - already prophesied by God in the garden (see Genesis 3:15) - shapes much of the remainder of Genesis, especially the book’s first 11 chapters.

The “first fruits” of Adam and Eve - their son Cain - is born of bad seed; his younger brother, Abel, of good. Cain kills Abel, becomes the world’s first murderer. As Adam and Eve, the first children of God, rejected the Fatherhood of God, their bad seed rejects the family of man that God intended to create. This is symbolized in Cain’s pitiless, spiteful words to God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (see Genesis 4:9).

Cain’s wicked line grows and one of his descendants becomes the first to take two wives - a perversion of the order of marriage God established in the garden (see Genesis 2:21-24) - and boasts of his murderous, vengeful ways (see Genesis 4:23-34).

Then Adam and Eve produce a good seed - Seth. It’s the children of Seth, born of Seth’s son, Enosh, who first begin to develop a personal, prayerful relationship with God - they “invoke the Lord by name” (see Genesis 4:26). The word name in Hebrew is shem. Just remember that for now, it will become important later.

Chapters 4 and 5 of Genesis give us a kind of comparison of the “bad seed” and “good seed” of Adam. We read of the sons of Cain (see Genesis 4:17-24) and the sons of Seth (see Genesis 5:1-32). From the first, come the unrighteous sons and “daughters of man” and from the latter, the righteous “sons of heaven” (see Genesis 6:2).

But sin infects even the righteous. And Seth’s descendants, seduced by the beauty of the daughters of Cain’s line, take them as wives. Worse yet, they follow Lamech’s example and take more than one wife - “as many of them as they chose” (see Genesis 6:1-4).

The fruits of the “intercourse” of the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain were men of even more violence and wickedness - “men of renown,” which Scripture elsewhere calls “proud giants…skilled in war” (see Wisdom 14:6; Baruch 3:26-27).

Finally, God is overcome with “sorrow” and “regret” at “how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives” (see Genesis 6:5,7,12). Remember: God doesn’t actually get sorry or repent or change His mind like humans do - this is just a figure of speech to tell us how awful things had become (see Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6).


I wouldn’t put too much into all this “incubus” and “succubus” stuff. It is myth. Have you ever heard of women who conceive children without real-human intercourse (besides Mary of course)?

If there were such a thing as incubus and succubus we would have real documented cases of women who conceived evil children.
Ummm… I’m just a regular bloke, and maybe I’m a bit naive, but isn’t it pretty common for people to be visited at night by erotic dreams? Why on earth should we think that anything real is happening?
yea I agree.

I mean come on, I have enough to worry about…NOW you tell me I have to watch my dreams too cuz one of these may do something to me??

Good Gravy when will it end!!

ya know, sometimes I just cant wait for Christ to come back

but it would be my luck that it would be right after I missed a confession.

Lord have mercy on us.
I understand that a baptized Christian cannot be possessed without formal coopearation with demons, though, demonic oppression can get intense.

I’ll keep you in prayer.
A curse by a sorceror has been able to allow a demon to possess people unwillingly. And some righteous individuals could get possessed as part of God’s plan. St. John Vianney saw a man who was possessed but he was not supposed to deliver him at that time. Who knows God’s ways but God?

Actually, nightmares and “wet dreams” got their origins from and were attributed to incubi and succubi. It is WELL documented that men and women both would wake up after a lurid sexual dream and claimed that they were attacked in their sleep by demons.
I’m an actor…
Me, too (member SAG and AFTRA); tried to private-message you (NOT regarding your quip), but unsuccessfully. Anyone know if DomVob is suspended voluntarily or involuntarily? Just curious. :confused:
Not open for further replies.